Weight Training to On the Bike Strength.

"Scott Downie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ok some say that when you stop strength training and begin riding that you will lose the strength
built by resistance training. Why would you lose strength if you are training on the bike at an
intensity to increase speed/endurance to your highest level?

You're not wrong. If you perform cycling at the same intensity/force with which you lifted weigths
you should be able to maintain or even increase strength. The question is: do you cycle so that 6-8
reps causes you to fail? You can if you do some highly specific training, but most people don't.

Cheers,

Jim

you are generally correct.

For example,

- when you are weight lifting you are specifically training to be a weight lifter, and some of that
weight lifting will carry over to - for example - improving your jump or climbing in cycling
- if you have not been weight lifting, doing intense and properly planned cycling workouts, will
improve your weight lifting

But they are different motions ( squatting is a similar motion to pedaling, but not exactly the same
). Thus, improvement in one does not directly equate to improvement in the other, because of the
specificity of the work being done.

John Bickmore www.BicycleCam.com www.Feed-Zone.com

"Scott Downie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ok some say that when you stop strength training and begin riding that you will lose the strength
built by resistance training. Why would you lose strength if you are training on the bike at an
intensity to increase speed/endurance to your highest level? Wouldn't this training stress the
muscles at the level you need to get stronger for the task of cycling ? Where does the loss come
from if you are stressing the muscles from their current level, to rebuild to a higher level of
strength for cycling ? You may not be able to get back under the squat bar and push up what you
did at the end of your resistance training, but you started on the bike at that level of strength
and if you are training with the stress/rebuild theory, you should keep all of the strength
neccesary to

go

Quoted message said:

as fast as possible...... I could be wrong Scott

--
My wife and I have a difference of opinion. She thinks I need to see a shrink...I think I need a
new bike.

"Scott Downie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ok some say that when you stop strength training and begin riding that you will lose the strength
built by resistance training. Why would you lose strength if you are training on the bike at an
intensity to increase speed/endurance to your highest level? Wouldn't this training stress the
muscles at the level you need to get stronger for the task of cycling ? Where does the loss come
from if you are stressing the muscles from their current level, to rebuild to a higher level of
strength for cycling ? You may not be able to get back under the squat bar and push up what you
did at the end of your resistance training, but you started on the bike at that level of strength
and if you are training with the stress/rebuild theory, you should keep all of the strength
neccesary to

go

Quoted message said:

as fast as possible...... I could be wrong Scott

Aside from the fact that the force requirements for cycling are considerably lower than for weight
lifting (such that some reversal of any hypertrophy will occur), it is also important to keep in
mind that much of the increase in strength that results from lifting is due to neurological
adaptations. These are highly specific to the forces, joint angle(s), and speed(s) of movement used
in training, and thus don't transfer well at all from one activity to another. Between these two
factors (relative atrophy and loss of neurological adaptations), strength will decline even if you
are training intensely on the bike. (Conversely, because of the specificity of training, there will
be very limited transfer of any gains achieved via weight lifting to cycling.)

Andy Coggan

"xzzy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

- when you are weight lifting you are specifically training to be a weight lifter, and some of
that weight lifting will carry over to - for example - improving your jump or climbing in
cycling

Can you point to one carefully controlled scientific study of trained cyclists pedaling at normal
rates that shows this effect?

Andy Coggan

When I started into cycling I was already pretty much into weight training. I always had power for
the short hills and sprints. Those things were my strengths.

But the day I finally decided to stop weight training altogether (2 years ago now) and add that time
to my on-the-bike training was a day that marked the beginning of some dramatic improvement --
particularly on rides where longer climbs are involved.

I really did a lot of research on the net and in the newsgroups. Something wasn't right. I had all
this strength for short bursts and I was fine on the flats. I was also doing lots of miles, so I had
good endurance in longer events. But if there was a sustained climb -- a mile or more, I'd be among
the first to blow up.

Finally I came across something written by Dr. Max Testa where he pointed out that muscle built up
through resistance training does not develop the vascular support system to allow for the
elimination of lactic acid during sustained climbing. He encourages "on the bike" resistance
training where the vascular support system is built along with the muscle. I went that route and it
made a WORLD of difference.

I do lots of abdominal exercises every day, though. That kind of core strength is important.

FWIW, Bob C.
P.S. A couple of years ago I used to post here all the time arguing in favor of weight training.
Now I'm on the other side of the fence. "Scott Downie" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ok some say that when you stop strength training and begin riding that you will lose the strength
built by resistance training. Why would you lose strength if you are training on the bike at an
intensity to increase speed/endurance to your highest level? Wouldn't this training stress the
muscles at the level you need to get stronger for the task of cycling ? Where does the loss come
from if you are stressing the muscles from their current level, to rebuild to a higher level of
strength for cycling ? You may not be able to get back under the squat bar and push up what you
did at the end of your resistance training, but you started on the bike at that level of strength
and if you are training with the stress/rebuild theory, you should keep all of the strength
neccesary to

go

Quoted message said:

as fast as possible...... I could be wrong Scott

--
My wife and I have a difference of opinion. She thinks I need to see a shrink...I think I need a
new bike.

Quoted message said:

Finally I came across something written by Dr. Max Testa where he pointed out that muscle built up
through resistance training does not develop the vascular support system to allow for the
elimination of lactic acid during sustained climbing. He encourages "on the bike" resistance
training where the vascular support system is built along with the muscle. I went that route and
it made a WORLD of difference.

Yes, beyond a short sprint, differences in cycling ability are going to be caused by cardiovascular
factors mainly (i.e. density of vasculature, mitochondria and enzymes of oxidatition, and then the
hearts ability to deliver oxygen to the muscle), not by how "strong" the muscle is. If by strong
you're talking about the force the muscle is capable of producing during a max effort or a handful
of repetitions.

BTW, from what I've read in the literature there seems to be a good bit of evidence developing that
lactic acid is not the cause of muscle fatigue or at least plays a minor role. So, while Dr. Testa
may be right in the big picture, he's probably wrong in implying "the elimination of lactic acid"
per se is the cause of improvements during sustained climbing.

Wayne <[email hidden]> wrote:
: Yes, beyond a short sprint, differences in cycling ability are going to be caused by
: cardiovascular factors mainly (i.e. density of vasculature, mitochondria and enzymes of
: oxidatition, and then the hearts ability to deliver oxygen to the muscle), not by how "strong" the
: muscle is. If by strong you're talking about the force the muscle is capable of producing during a
: max effort or a handful of repetitions.

One could add a power phase to one's resistance training program or perform exercises on bike that
develop strenght for easier transition. Beginners in resistance training are probably better off
substituting the power phase, which is supposed to be done with rather heavy weights, with other
kind of plyometrics. For example, you could perform explosive jumps off the bottom of a swimming
pool. If you are more endurance oriented you could also do sets with more reps for muscle
conditioning.

I think some resistance training is a good idea because if you just add more time to on bike
training, you could hit the wall of diminishing returns or other limitations. It depends on your
strenghts and weaknesses and training goals.

I have done mostly moderate resistance training during the off season of last 3-4 months. I expect
it is helping me to become better all-around cyclist. Currently my climbing ability seems to be
about the same as last season, and I feel stronger when swimming. But I still have 8 months to this
season I can spend on my bike improving my cycling abilities, you can fit a lot in that
:-)

: BTW, from what I've read in the literature there seems to be a good bit of evidence developing
: that lactic acid is not the cause of muscle fatigue or at least plays a minor role. So, while Dr.
: Testa may be right in the big picture, he's probably wrong in implying "the elimination of lactic
: acid" per se is the cause of improvements during sustained climbing.

Read some short notices on this, the cause of fatigue could be hydrogen ions, while lactic acid is
more like an energy source.

--
Risto Varanka | helsinki.fi~rvarankaOpen ↗ varis at no spam please iki fi

In article said:

Quoted message said:

Finally I came across something written by Dr. Max Testa where he pointed out that muscle built
up through resistance training does not develop the vascular support system to allow for the
elimination of lactic acid during sustained climbing. He encourages "on the bike" resistance
training where the vascular support system is built along with the muscle. I went that route and
it made a WORLD of difference.

Yes, beyond a short sprint, differences in cycling ability are going to be caused by
cardiovascular factors mainly (i.e. density of vasculature, mitochondria and enzymes of
oxidatition, and then the hearts ability to deliver oxygen to the muscle), not by how "strong" the
muscle is. If by strong you're talking about the force the muscle is capable of producing during a
max effort or a handful of repetitions.

BTW, from what I've read in the literature there seems to be a good bit of evidence developing
that lactic acid is not the cause of muscle fatigue or at least plays a minor role. So, while Dr.
Testa may be right in the big picture, he's probably wrong in implying "the elimination of lactic
acid" per se is the cause of improvements during sustained climbing.

Is he wrong if he didn't say that? Without improving the ability of muscle to transport MANY
different chemicals, wastes, oxygen, etc. improvements in strength will not carry over well to a
cyclist who wants to go up hills faster. As Andy has also mentioned, specificity (specific
adaptation for a given task) is very important and is another reason Testa and others advocate
strength training on the bike to develop cycling strength.

-WG

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Warren

BIn article said:

Quoted message said:

Finally I came across something written by Dr. Max Testa where he pointed out that muscle built
up through resistance training does not develop the vascular support system to allow for the
elimination of lactic acid during sustained climbing. He encourages "on the bike" resistance
training where the vascular support system is built along with the muscle. I went that route and
it made a WORLD of difference.

Yes, beyond a short sprint, differences in cycling ability are going to be caused by
cardiovascular factors mainly (i.e. density of vasculature, mitochondria and enzymes of
oxidatition, and then the hearts ability to deliver oxygen to the muscle), not by how "strong" the
muscle is. If by strong you're talking about the force the muscle is capable of producing during a
max effort or a handful of repetitions.

BTW, from what I've read in the literature there seems to be a good bit of evidence developing
that lactic acid is not the cause of muscle fatigue or at least plays a minor role. So, while Dr.
Testa may be right in the big picture, he's probably wrong in implying "the elimination of lactic
acid" per se is the cause of improvements during sustained climbing.

Is he wrong if he didn't say that? Without improving the ability of muscle to transport MANY
different chemicals, wastes, oxygen, etc. improvements in strength will not carry over well to a
cyclist who wants to go up hills faster. As Andy has also mentioned, specificity (specific
adaptation for a given task) is very important and is another reason Testa and others advocate
strength training on the bike to develop cycling strength.

-WG [/B]

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by TREKRacer925

Hey guys,

just a thought: I think it might be worthwhile to consider the concept of catabolism here. Namely, cycling and the cyclist's average diet of a lot of carbs/little protein doesn't exactly cater to building any kind of muscle from weights. My brother did a ton of leg work in the gym this winter, but given that he hardly had enough protein in his diet, he made relatively no gains. I'm not sure if it's this "anti-bulking" mentality in cyclists, but eating at least 1-1.5grams of protein/lb--which is the necessary amount to overcome muscle catabolism--will not make you bulk up. Over the winter, I work out in the gym 3 times a week (abs onces a week) in the typical body building fashion (now I'm riding & doing leg work w/ faster & greater reps: 100 reps of 235 on the leg press machine). however, if any of you have every tried to really build muscle, you'll know how essential it is that you get you fair share of protein. so add cycling's anticatabolic effects on there, as well as the fact that most cyclists who do weight training probably don't get enough protein in their diets (for fear of gaining "bulk" or too much weight), and you'll realize that the reason they haven't been getting anything out of weight training is the fact that they're not supporting muscle repair & growth with their cycling diets. I think people seriously overestimate the possibility of putting on too much weight in cycling. I am just getting back into the swing of things, yet I am actually leaner around the abs than my brother (who goes for 3hr + rides 4-5 times a week).

so if you consider that most cyclists don't eat enough to prevent catabolism, I think you'll have a pretty compelling reason why you're not seeing gains from weight training.

I definitely agree w/ the other guys' points about doing leg work in the gym and performing more reps faster pace. however, I just think that most cyclists fail to realize that the 60/40 carb/protein diet (or just the greater carb than protein cyclist diet), is not suitable to support muscle growth from weight training. While this means that you will probably have to consume a ton of protein 1.5grams per lb to overcome the catabolic effects of cycling & weight training, I think it's worth a shot.

"TREKRacer925" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

TREKRacer925 wrote:

Quoted message said:

I definitely agree w/ the other guys' points about doing leg work in the gym and performing more
reps faster pace. however, I just think that most cyclists fail to realize that the 60/40
carb/protein diet (or just the greater carb than protein cyclist diet), is not suitable to support
muscle growth from weight training. While this means that you will probably have to consume a ton
of protein 1.5grams per lb to overcome the catabolic effects of cycling & weight training, I think
it's worth a shot.

Most (Western) cyclists, like most non-cyclists, eat a diet that is roughly 45-50% carbohydrate,
30-35% fat, and 15-20% protein - they just eat more of
it. The number of cyclists who are protein deficient - even when you consider the additional protein
requirement of ENDURANCE exercise - is therefore quite low. Furthermore, consuming additional
protein beyond normal requirements does NOT enhance gains in either strength or lean mass during
resistance training. Your argument that cyclists will benefit by deliberately increasing their
protein intake when strength training therefore isn't consistent with the facts.

Andy Coggan

Quoted message said:

so if you consider that most cyclists don't eat enough to prevent catabolism, I think you'll have
a pretty compelling reason why you're not seeing gains from weight training.

What are you talking about? Getting stronger from weightlifting or lifting weights improving cycling
performance?

If the former, you may have a point, but I don't think anyone here was discussing a lack of strength
gains in the gym.

If the latter, "the compelling reason" is something along the lines that the adpatations that make
one stronger are not the same that improve ones endurance at almost any submaximal power output and
would thus improve cycling performance. Just because lifting weights and riding a bike both use your
muscles, doesn't mean they stimulate the same muscular or cardiovascular adaptations and lead to
performance gains across the board. In fact the two activities stimulate almost entirely different
adaptations so is it really surprising that one doesn't improve the other?

Andy, something i have noticed and never knew why.

after taking my once per week protein shake (pro-score 100) i have always noticed the next two days
of training my power and endurance were up but my speed and jumping/sprinting abilitly were down. is
this a common occurance after consuming protein supplements? i have also notice if i put a small
amount in my water bottle for a 80-100 mile ride i feel great for that last 20 miles. however it
definately inhibits my abillity to jump and attack. in other words it makes me ride more like a
deisel type engine. are there any draw backs to taking it during long races or training rides? more
water necessary? longer recovery periods?

In article <[email hidden]>, Andy Coggan

Quoted message said:

"TREKRacer925" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

TREKRacer925 wrote:

Quoted message said:

I definitely agree w/ the other guys' points about doing leg work in the gym and performing more
reps faster pace. however, I just think that most cyclists fail to realize that the 60/40
carb/protein diet (or just the greater carb than protein cyclist diet), is not suitable to
support muscle growth from weight training. While this means that you will probably have to
consume a ton of protein 1.5grams per lb

I think you meant to say 1.5 grams per kg.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to overcome the catabolic effects of cycling & weight training, I think it's worth a shot.

Most (Western) cyclists, like most non-cyclists, eat a diet that is roughly 45-50% carbohydrate,
30-35% fat, and 15-20% protein - they just eat more of
it.

That fat % seems very high to me. Where does it say what a good cyclist eats not an average cyclist
who rides 60 miles a week? Or a cyclist with not as much slow twitch as a pro roadie who should
probably eat less fat?

Quoted message said:

The number of cyclists who are protein deficient - even when you consider the additional protein
requirement of ENDURANCE exercise - is therefore quite low.

Therefore? Based on what evidence?

Quoted message said:

Furthermore, consuming additional protein beyond normal requirements does NOT enhance gains in
either strength or lean mass during resistance training.

-Unless they are already deficient or nearly so. Obviously, consuming protein doesn't make you
stronger by itself, but you need to have enough to support the training.

I was advised to eat up to 1.5 grams of protein per kg of bodyweight even though I'm not doing much
strength-building training.

I think it's more useful to think of food as fuel and eat the right amount of carbs and protein in
grams to provide what's needed for fuel, recovery, etc.

-WG

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Andy Coggan

Quoted message said:

"TREKRacer925" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

TREKRacer925 wrote:

Quoted message said:

I definitely agree w/ the other guys' points about doing leg work in the gym and performing
more reps faster pace. however, I just think that most cyclists fail to realize that the 60/40
carb/protein diet

(or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

just the greater carb than protein cyclist diet), is not suitable to support muscle growth
from weight training. While this means that you will probably have to consume a ton of protein
1.5grams per lb

I think you meant to say 1.5 grams per kg.

Just to be clear - I didn't say 1.5 grams per lbs, "TREKRacer925" did.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to overcome the catabolic effects of cycling & weight training, I think it's worth a shot.

Most (Western) cyclists, like most non-cyclists, eat a diet that is

roughly

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

45-50% carbohydrate, 30-35% fat, and 15-20% protein - they just eat more

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it.

That fat % seems very high to me. Where does it say what a good cyclist eats not an average
cyclist who rides 60 miles a week?

One nutritional survey after another has shown that, on the whole, the diet of endurance athletes
really isn't any different from that of the general population. This makes perfect sense when you
consider the vast societal influences that determine what we eat.

Quoted message said:

Or a cyclist with not as much slow twitch as a pro roadie who should probably eat less fat?

? Not sure I follow your question here.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The number of cyclists who are protein deficient - even when you consider the additional protein
requirement of ENDURANCE exercise - is therefore quite low.

Therefore? Based on what evidence?

Simple math: if you're eating more calories than average, and the percentage of protein in your diet
is 15-20%, then your protein requirement will be covered, even if it is slightly elevated as a
result of endurance training. The only cyclists who might be at significant risk for inadequate
protein intake are A) those whose energy intakes are low (e.g., individuals - esp. women - who are
attempting to lose weight) and B) those whose diet contains less than 15% quality protein (e.g.,
total vegans, if they aren't attentive to their protein needs and/or just don't eat a lot of food).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Furthermore, consuming additional protein beyond normal requirements does NOT enhance gains in
either strength or lean mass

during

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

resistance training.

-Unless they are already deficient or nearly so. Obviously, consuming protein doesn't make you
stronger by itself, but you need to have enough to support the training.

True - but for most people this isn't a problem, even without the use of supplements.

Just as important as nitrogen (protein) balance is energy balance - it is difficult, if not
impossible, to achieve the former if you are maintaining the latter.

Quoted message said:

I was advised to eat up to 1.5 grams of protein per kg of bodyweight even though I'm not doing
much strength-building training.

"Up to" makes this a reasonable recommendation...the USDA places the protein requirement at 1 g/kg
body weight for sedentary individuals, and research studies indicate that endurance training
increases this requirement somewhat (I believe the mean value from Wayne Campbell's study was 1.2
g/kg, but then you have to allow for individual variation, etc.). But even 1.5 g/kg for a 70 kg
athlete is still only 105 g, or 420 kcal, of protein...that's only around 10% of what total energy
intake might be, so I think it should be obvious that a typical Western diet containing 15-20%
protein can readily cover this need.

Quoted message said:

I think it's more useful to think of food as fuel and eat the right amount of carbs and protein in
grams to provide what's needed for fuel, recovery, etc.

Meaning in terms of grams per kilogram, etc., instead of percentage of energy? I agree with
you there.

Andy Coggan

Andy Coggan <[email hidden]> wrote:
: The only cyclists who might be at significant risk for inadequate protein intake are A) those
: whose energy intakes are low (e.g., individuals - esp. women - who are attempting to lose weight)
: and B) those whose diet contains less than 15% quality protein (e.g., total vegans, if they aren't
: attentive to their protein needs and/or just don't eat a lot of food).

Vegans could easily cover their protein needs with soy, which AFAIK includes higher grade protein
than milk. You can buy soy as powder which is both cheap and convenient...

Even that might not be necessary, since you can get high quality protein diet by combining different
vegetable sources. If you are concerned, check what kind of protein is in what stuff and mix
accordingly. Some experts seem to doubt that you even need to consume all essential amino acids on
the same meal. Also the 1 g per kg requirement for protein intake could already be overkill.

--
Risto Varanka | helsinki.fi~rvarankaOpen ↗ varis at no spam please iki fi

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Andy Coggan <[email hidden]> wrote:
: The only cyclists who might be at significant risk for inadequate

protein

Quoted message said:

: intake are A) those whose energy intakes are low (e.g., individuals -

esp.

Quoted message said:

: women - who are attempting to lose weight) and B) those whose diet

contains

Quoted message said:

: less than 15% quality protein (e.g., total vegans, if they aren't

attentive

Quoted message said:

: to their protein needs and/or just don't eat a lot of food).

Vegans could easily cover their protein needs with soy, which AFAIK includes higher grade protein
than milk. You can buy soy as powder which is both cheap and convenient...

Correct - I didn't mean to imply that one needed to eat animal products to obtain the necessary
protein, only that the total lack of animal products in the diet means that you might have to be
more aware of/attentive to protein needs.

Quoted message said:

Even that might not be necessary, since you can get high quality protein diet by combining
different vegetable sources. If you are concerned, check what kind of protein is in what stuff and
mix accordingly. Some experts seem to doubt that you even need to consume all essential amino
acids on the same meal.

I think you can go so far as to say that this whole "food combining" idea has gone by the wayside...

Quoted message said:

Also the 1 g per kg requirement for protein intake could already be overkill.

I believe the WHO places it as 0.6 g/kg...but regardless of the requirement of sedentary persons,
the best available scientific data (which is still quite limited) is that endurance athletes have a
protein need of around 1.2
g/kg.

Andy Coggan

In article <[email hidden]>, Andy Coggan

Quoted message said:

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Andy Coggan

Quoted message said:

"TREKRacer925" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
> TREKRacer925 wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> ...just the greater carb than protein cyclist diet), is not suitable to support muscle
> growth from weight training. While this means that you will probably have to consume a ton
> of protein 1.5grams per lb

I think you meant to say 1.5 grams per kg.

Just to be clear - I didn't say 1.5 grams per lbs, "TREKRacer925" did.

If you had said it I would have known it was a typo.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> to overcome the catabolic effects of cycling & weight training, I think it's worth a shot.

Most (Western) cyclists, like most non-cyclists, eat a diet that is

roughly

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

45-50% carbohydrate, 30-35% fat, and 15-20% protein - they just eat more

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it.

That fat % seems very high to me. Where does it say what a good cyclist eats not an average
cyclist who rides 60 miles a week?

One nutritional survey after another has shown that, on the whole, the diet of endurance athletes
really isn't any different from that of the general population. This makes perfect sense when you
consider the vast societal influences that determine what we eat.

I think a real athlete is often making some effort to overcome that societal influence you mention
to make sure they get enough carbs and protein. I don't think it's useful to just say, well you're
an athlete so just eat more of what your family and friends eat.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or a cyclist with not as much slow twitch as a pro roadie who should probably eat less fat?

? Not sure I follow your question here.

Pro roadies can utilize fat for fuel more efficiently than most cyclists who are not pros, Ironman
elite, marathon elite, etc. The % of total calories as fat could be higher for them and not cause
the problems it might for people who aren't as well adapted to fat for fuel.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The number of cyclists who are protein deficient - even when you consider the additional
protein requirement of ENDURANCE exercise - is therefore quite low.

Therefore? Based on what evidence?

Simple math: if you're eating more calories than average, and the percentage of protein in your
diet is 15-20%, then your protein requirement will be covered, even if it is slightly elevated as
a result of endurance training. The only cyclists who might be at significant risk for inadequate
protein intake are A) those whose energy intakes are low (e.g., individuals - esp. women - who
are attempting to lose weight) and B) those whose diet contains less than 15% quality protein
(e.g., total vegans, if they aren't attentive to their protein needs and/or just don't eat a lot
of food).

I really don't know how many calories I eat in a day, but for me, and many studies you know about
the guidelines based on X grams of protein per kg of bodyweight are more easily adapted for an
athlete's needs,
e.g., strength training could be 1.5-1.8 g/kg, endurance training could be ~1.0-1.5 g/kg, etc. I
focus on getting those specific amounts of protein (and sometimes that is not easily done),
minimal bad fats, as much good fat as reasonable, and then the carbs just fall into place.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I was advised to eat up to 1.5 grams of protein per kg of bodyweight even though I'm not doing
much strength-building training.

"Up to" makes this a reasonable recommendation...the USDA places the protein requirement at 1 g/kg
body weight for sedentary individuals, and research studies indicate that endurance training
increases this requirement somewhat (I believe the mean value from Wayne Campbell's study was 1.2
g/kg, but then you have to allow for individual variation, etc.). But even 1.5 g/kg for a 70 kg
athlete is still only 105 g, or 420 kcal, of protein...that's only around 10% of what total energy
intake might be,

A 150lb person is eating 4000 calories/day?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think it's more useful to think of food as fuel and eat the right amount of carbs and protein
in grams to provide what's needed for fuel, recovery, etc.

Meaning in terms of grams per kilogram, etc., instead of percentage of energy? I agree with
you there.

So why is it the sports med people like to do studies with X grams/kg but for the general public
it's almost always expressed as the more vague % of total calories? And why was your first
recommendation based on % of total calories?

-WG

warren <[email hidden]> wrote:
: Pro roadies can utilize fat for fuel more efficiently than most cyclists who are not pros, Ironman
: elite, marathon elite, etc. The % of total calories as fat could be higher for them and not cause
: the problems it might for people who aren't as well adapted to fat for fuel.

Sounds plausible, but does the fat you burn on the ride come as fat in the diet? To my knowledge,
human body effectively converts consumed carbohydrates into fat if they are not promptly needed. The
fat storage in human body - any body short of famished one to my understanding - is huge when
compared to the vast majority of cycling needs. If you can burn fat off that storage while riding,
you are going to have a huge advantage.

Burning carbs is still more effective, even if you are a pro ultrarider 🙂 Just getting a decent
load of carbs sounds a good idea - some gets burned, the rest is just stored as fat - but I guess
there is a limit on everything, in this case to your ability to digest carbs. For that reason it
might make sense to get some extra fat.

Does protein have any significance as an energy source? I think a few odd percentages of your energy
requirement is satisfied by protein in long road races.

Your digestion is the last bottleneck, and one that is very important in ultrariding.

--
Risto Varanka | helsinki.fi~rvarankaOpen ↗ varis at no spam please iki fi